[Advaita-l] GYAnimAtra and the sthitapraGYa (was Re: FW: Avidya, Jnanis and SSS' views)

[V Subrahmanian]

In my opinion, if the Yajnavalkya case is resolved, things will be very
clear about the mukta and jivanmukta as per the JVM.  Personally I do not
see any problem here.  Sri Vidyaranya himself agrees that Yajnavalkya is an
aparoksha jnani with the authoriity of being a Brahmavidya Acharya of the
Upanishads. Nowhere he says that he is not a mukta, to return to samsara by
rebirth.  Everyone understands by the term 'mukta' someone who has destroyed
his avidya through samyag aparoksha jnana and freed himself from the cycle
of birth and death. The question of jivanmukti and the degrees (types) in
jivanmukta comes only after this bottom line.  Sri Vidyaranya only cites
that case to show that the absence of vk and mn does not make Yajnavalkya a
'jivanmukta' of the JMV specification.

I would like you to revisit what you have said earlier in this thread:

// iyam evaasmadabhimataa jIvanmuktiH. yAGYavalkyaH tu
  vijigIshhudshaayaaM na hIdR^ishaH, cittavishraantaye
  vidvatsaMnyaasasya tena karishhyamANatvaat.h .

(Vidyaranya does not say that Yajnavaklya resorted to sannyasa as a
vividishaa, a seeker of Jnana.  Everywhere it is agreed that Jnana is what
gives moksha.  And such a one is a mukta.  Jivanmukti, in the definition of
the JMV, is only after this Jnana is had.  Of course, the ideal situation
the JMV prescribes, on the authority of the Yoga Vasishtha,  is: practice of
vk, mn along with Jnana, for the one who has not yet had Jnana.  This will
result in the most ideal situation where the aproksha jnana, when it dawns
will be accompanied by vk and mn and will automatically launch such a one in
the jivanmukti.  He talks about those who have had the liberating Jnana but
have not practiced vk and mn adequately enough.  Such is the case of
Yajnavalkya.  It is they who have to put 'effort' for vk and mn.  Their
success or failure in this endeavour will not have a bearing on their
muktatvam which is determined by their aparoksha  Jnanam.  They will anyway
be outside the cycle of birth and death.  That is the point I have been
driving at.  If you see this as something unauthoritative, I have no option
than to leave things as they are.)

  "This is the jIvanmukti we approve of. But YAGYavalkya was
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  not in this state while he was still desirous of victory in
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  disputation, since he was yet to take the vidvatsannyAsa in
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  order to set the mind at rest.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Put it simply:

According to VidyAraNya: YAGYavalkya had saMyak-aparokSha-brahmaGYAna.
According to VidyAraNya: YAGYavalkya did NOT have jIvanmukti.

(The reason I place the qualifier "According to VidyAraNya" in the two
statements above is because one may perhaps dispute whether VidyAraNya's
assessment of YAGYavalkya's BrahmaGYAna is correct, but there can be no
doubt that in VidyAraNya's opinion, YAGYavalkya had
saMyak-aparokSha-BrahmaGYAna but not jIvanmukti.)

Hence according to VidyAraNya, saMyak-aparokSha-BrahmaGYAna by itself does
not constitute jIvanmukti. ***The BrahmaGYAna must ALSO be steady
(sthitaM).***

***The "sthitaM" aspect of BrahmaGYAna is precisely what is accomplished by
vAsanAkShya-manonAsha.*** //

Does Vidyaranya say anywhere that Yajnavalkya was a baddha samsaari, not
free from the cycle of birth and death? If that can be proved from the JMV,
I shall be most interested in studying that and correcting my understanding.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v


On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:00 AM, S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Fri, 5/7/10, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > In fact, in the tight definition of the JMV of a
> > jivanmukta (who has
> > practiced vk and mn) it might appear that only a jivanmukta
> > is a liberated
> > one.  But outside this definition, it is commonly held
> > that 'a liberated
> > while alive' is an aparoksha jnani, with no explicit
> > qualification that he
> > is someone with a very high degree of vk and mn.
> >
>
> It is apparent from the above that you feel free to speak from one
> "commonly held" viewpoint that does not necessarily agree with the JMV.
>
> I don't know how to answer that, except that I prefer to speak purely from
> the standpoint of an authoritative text, such as the JMV, especially in
> matters concerning GYAna and mukti. Otherwise, we arrive at strange concepts
> like "mukta with a living body, but not jIvanmukta", which are difficult to
> comprehend (to say the least)!
>
> Regards,
> Kartik
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>